Cindy Bevilacqua thought she’d found the perfect plan for retirement—a small, pie-shaped parcel in southeast Gainesville and a nearly-demolished home to renovate.
After two years and $60,000 to $70,000 in sunk costs, Bevilacqua said she’s now with a parcel that the city wants to remain vacant and an unrenovated home with a demolition order hanging over it. A Nov. 14 special magistrate hearing left her with a timeline to move the home and daily fines for running over.
The ordeal will also impact her business, CindyBGoods on NW 5th Avenue, which will close at the end of April when her lease runs out.
“Then, all of a sudden, it just came to a screeching halt, and now I’m being demonized,” Bevilacqua said. “It’s like I am the bad guy. I’ve got this dangerous piece of property sitting out there.”
The parcel is located at 1456 SE 22nd Ave., and everyone agrees it’s an odd-shaped property. But it’s zoned single-family residential and was available, complete with a large live oak to shade the area.
The house was scheduled for demolition. The city’s Preservation Board said it could be renovated, but it needed to be moved to make way for a new Habitat for Humanity Home.
Bevilacqua said a plan came together with Sheryl Eddie, her business partner, and Tyler Smith, who founded Preserving Architecture Through History and was the executive director of Keep Alachua County Beautiful at the time.
Bevilacqua could buy the house, move it to this small parcel and start renovating her retirement home. The pieces to the plan would be affordable for her, and she could picture sitting on the front porch or walking to nearby T.B. McPherson Park.
Smith would do the groundwork before selling the home and property to Bevilacqua. He applied for a permit to move the house from its current location, with the plans showing the route and where the house would end.
T&T House Moving hauled the house in August 2023 and left it on its transport equipment until a permanent foundation could be built. Smith started the next round of city submissions but never got any further.
Nicole Johnson, a codes enforcement supervisor, said the city didn’t know where the home was being moved to and the structure never got permission to stay there.
“The home was moved there after he got the tax deed sale without anyone knowing where he was placing it until we just saw it on the side of the road and the process started,” Johnson said at the special magistrate hearing.
The city said the lot is not a good spot for a building, in fact they don’t want any structure on the site. Surrounded on two of its three sides by roadways and a sidewalk along the third side, the lot looks like a city right-of-way or a city-owned buffer where the roads meet.
In fact, Gainesville’s Public Works Department had been maintaining the property thinking it belonged to the city, and the department continued for a short time even after the house appeared, according to Johnson.
After Smith asked for a foundation permit, the planning department asked for a topographic map and surveys of the site, and Bevilacqua said the project seemed to be progressing until a switch flipped. Then, the city said the lot was unbuildable and she needed to remove the house because it was a dangerous building and violated codes.
Bevilacqua said Smith had done this type of development, moving a house to an empty lot to redevelop it. She said it seemed like a perfect fit for Gainesville, where lots of people aim to reuse and keep demolition debris from landfills. Emails to the planning department show Smith asking when the project would get approved for a foundation permit.
Smith moved the house in August 2023. By June 2024, the planning department said they were still working on the review.
“The neighbors have told me they are annoyed that it has taken so long, and they feel like this wouldn’t occur in the Duckpond neighborhood,” Smith wrote to the department on June 17.
On July 15, the city said the house couldn’t be on the site, and a notice of violation followed.
Bevilacqua bought the property from Smith in September 2024 to allow him to relocate for a new job, and she ended up before a special magistrate hearing in November.
At the hearing, the city presented how the house was in violation and she needed to move it.
Forrest Eddleton, director of the Department of Sustainable Development, said the easements for the two roadways prevent the majority of the lot from being developed. He said it’s essentially an undevelopable lot because the area where a structure can go is too small.
He added that the move permit to a new site does not mean staff thinks the building will meet all the codes on the receiving site.
“[A moving permit] does not include a site review of the landing location,” Eddleton told the special magistrate. “What we do for that is then move it into planning, to start reviewing how a new structure will be or how this development is going to happen on the parcel.”
Staff added that they also got numerous calls from drivers saying the house blocked their view when turning.
Bevilacqua asked why she was even allowed to move the house to that lot if it’s undevelopable and why she had to pay more money for surveys if the city just doesn’t want anything on the spot. The surveys wouldn’t change the nearly impossible setback regulations she would need to meet.
Mayor Harvey Ward told Mainstreet that the city expects applicants to do all the required checks to make sure a lot is buildable. He said the permit to move a building only looks at the route and safety of moving the building, not if the place where it’s going is compatible.
Since the incident with Bevilacqua, he said the city decided to change its policy and not allow someone to move a house until they demonstrate the receiving site is appropriate. He said moving homes isn’t a very common practice in the city.
Special magistrate Jefferson Braswell ruled in favor of the city, letting the demolition order stand unless Bevilacqua can move the house. But he said it was a tough case and that he can only rule based on the city’s codes.
“There were, sounds like to me, lots of opportunities for somebody to raise the red flag,” Braswell said about the city process. “And so, I feel really bad about that. I listened to what you have to say, and I listened to what the city had to say, and I’m not pleased with this. But the house is not in compliance with this city’s codes, and I can’t fix that. I don’t even come close to having the power to fix that.”
Ward said the city must walk the line between guiding developers step-by-step through a process and saying here’s the permits you’ll need, check and see if you qualify. In the past, the city has said it’d trust the people moving a house to make good choices on locations that qualify.
“The city did not target anyone,” Ward said. “The city did not try to make this difficult. That lot didn’t have an existing home on it for a reason, and I feel like that should have been maybe a red flag from the beginning.”
Bevilacqua said she can’t afford to own her own business while searching for a home to retire to. Currently, she lives with her business partner, Eddie. To get a loan to buy a house, Bevilacqua said she needs a solid income from a job.
Eddie said she thinks the city needs to admit to a mistake and reimburse Bevilacqua for the costs that went into a lot that could never be developed. She said the city should pay for the parcel that they thought they owned and move forward.
But for now, Bevilacqua is trying to find someone to buy the house and prevent demolition. A potential buyer came forward, but the route to move the house was too narrow in a section to work. Bevilacqua said she’s had a few other interested parties.
The special magistrate gave 60 days (Jan. 14) to come into compliance before fines start accruing, and the city’s director of codes enforcement has asked for a definite timeline to have the house gone.
In a March email to city codes and Ward, Eddie said she and Bevilacqua will either move or demolish the home in April as the two prepare to close their shop.
seems like the city made a mistake in not taking that parcel off the market and making it Right of Way. and trying to charge her fines for their mistakes is crazy as well.
It’s crazy how the city can issue an “OK to move house” permit without knowing where the house will be taken and making sure that the receiving site is OK. Seems like that should be part of the OK to move permit. They wait until the house is moved and then review the site? Insane. I guess they do it that way so they can squeeze more money out of people for permits and fines. The site is zoned for single family homes so how is it the city’s right of way? I also agree with the previous comment that the city is at fault for not knowing that the site doesn’t belong to them! There’s no way this woman should have to pay fines to the city for this mess the city created.
If the city wants this parcel to remain unused due to overly restrictive easements then they should use money from the wild places/green spaces fund to pay for the lot (I’m sure it’s less than the millions the city pays for other prime real estate to make sure no one can access the east side of town. How dare they allow the sale of a ZONED residential lot that they know a standard house cannot fit on, that ALSO believed belong to the city to start with.
Several things: The house was approved to be moved to that location, even where on the lot it was to be placed. See permit….and verification from the city that it was fine for a single family home! There is a zoning verification form that has to be completed to move a house. We have a location verification process in building and we were given the PERMIT to move it to that LOCATION! Nicole, the code enforcement officer may have not known but the building department did. It didn’t just suddenly appear. IT is a major proccess and expensive! IN the hearing the truth came out….the city public works they owned…Building department that gave the permit looked it up and saw it was zoned and privately owned. Public works/code enforcement didn’t bother to look it up and for over a year were claiming they owned the property in the hearing. We had no idea that was an issue until the NOVEMBER hearing. That is not what the violation was about…the violation was unsafe structure but it was unsafe because the city refused to allow the work to be completed. . An audit of all property the city claims it owns needs to be done so this doesn’t happen. It is pretty simple ANY one can go on the property appraiser website and look. And the house was zone SFR and sold with Clear title with the house on it Early August 2024. Would have been earlier but Hurricaine debbie delayed things. Violation notice sent in September AFTER the code enforement manager had already put a demolition permit in! All before a hearing. The city code is violation the owner for not have a structure up to code but won’t issue the permits to do so and now in this article is officially saying it is an unbuildable lot?????? NOT right. The lot is buildable, fits the set backs and met all the requirements….just the and it still has right away space etc. Weirdly shapped but buildable and there are many buildings/neighbor hoods that go to a corner like this. But in a wealthier side of town. Nice for the follow up we met on the 23rd of December and never recieved any follow up but passing the buck saying someone one would call. NO one did.
Several things: The house was approved to be moved to that location, even where on the lot it was to be placed. See permit….and verification from the city that it was fine for a single family home! There is a zoning verification form that has to be completed to move a house. We have a location verification process in building and we were given the PERMIT to move it to that LOCATION! Nicole, the code enforcement officer may have not known but the building department did. It didn’t just suddenly appear. IT is a major proccess and expensive! IN the hearing the truth came out….the city public works they owned…Building department that gave the permit looked it up and saw it was zoned and privately owned. Public works/code enforcement didn’t bother to look it up and for over a year were claiming they owned the property in the hearing. We had no idea that was an issue until the NOVEMBER hearing. That is not what the violation was about…the violation was unsafe structure but it was unsafe because the city refused to allow the work to be completed. . An audit of all property the city claims it owns needs to be done so this doesn’t happen. It is pretty simple ANY one can go on the property appraiser website and look. And the house was zone SFR and sold with Clear title with the house on it Early August 2024. Would have been earlier but Hurricaine debbie delayed things. Violation notice sent in September AFTER the code enforement manager had already put a demolition permit in! All before a hearing. The city code is violation the owner for not have a structure up to code but won’t issue the permits to do so and now in this article is officially saying it is an unbuildable lot?????? NOT right. The lot is buildable, fits the set backs and met all the requirements….just the and it still has right away space etc. Weirdly shapped but buildable and there are many buildings/neighbor hoods that go to a corner like this. But in a wealthier side of town. Nice for the follow up we met on the 23rd of December and never recieved any follow up but passing the buck saying someone one would call. NO one did. And the map showing that easment was not there previously or any where any property owner would know to look up!!! We researched it all….and letting someone pay to move a house to their property and then saying we don’t want anything on it, we thought we owned it is not city working for or with its constituents!!!!!
if the city doesn’t verify that the lot can have a single family home on it…then why do we need to get a permit that has the address? So we could have just moved the house to Mcpherson Park right across the street??? Same route.. would have been fine??? That is ridiculous…..or could we have placed it infront of city hall? Or in the middle of the street? How about in a medium on the high way….this is bull to put the blame on the land owner who followed all the precedures rather than admit the city made a mistake. The employee that verified this who worked for forest is no longer with the city….It was clear the plan for the home and the lot…the departments just don’t communicate and don’t have the time to bother to look up things on the property appraiser website…! Would never have moved the house had it not been buildable and having that in writing via emails, permits, and zoniing, and verification forms and detailed plans from T&T Building Moving.
Saying they don’t look at if
the lot is compatable is a lie. There was a verification form that had to be complete, a drawing of where the house was going to be placed on the property, the address extra and we have it signed and approved by the city.
This is wrong! The City messed up and should take responsibility for it, not just shrug their shoulders. They need to pay the woman for the land and house moving. They should then work with her, so she can find somewhere else to move it. Hopefully, now that more people know that the City made such a mess of this woman’s retirement plans, they will apologize in public and make it right! That is the least they can do!
Just another not after digesting all this….we had to provide a map of exactly were the house was to be placed on the property, and it is on the building permit, city staff was there the day of the move. ALL the research was done, there was no easment on the property, and the employee that got everything approved (who conveniently) doesn’t work there anymore. That employee had the same information we did…not easements, privately owned and the route and placement we feasable. The other city department put in sewage and a power pole….The city staff was asked to come see the lot before the move multiple times and said “no need”. It if very very clear! The city commission and the mayor have the documentation but via through this article is the first time that has been officially stated as a problem. It was always until they reallized they didn’t own the lot “the house is unsafe because not on a foundation” yet refused to give the foundation permit. They tried to demolish BEFORE notice or a hearing….then said oops in the magistrate hearing that they thought they owned the land…but again, the focus was the houses safety. We diligently tried to get someone to save the house and move it and have those emails with Pete Backhaus the manager but some how “representatives” were told that we were refusing to move the house. ALL LIES. Instead of having a conversation, being up front and trying to come up with a fair solution to purchase the land and move the house or take it down SAFELY which means it has to be taken off of T&T equipement and put on a temporary foundation at a cost, and tear down cost….they are fining and blaming a senior citizen, rendering her homeless and taking her life savings so they can steal the land! Those are the simple fact. No clue of what kind of research Cindy, the lawyer, the title company, T&T or that could be found that would have prevented this. The worst part of this is the disrespect the city staff and Mayor has shown to Ms. Bevilacqua. WE will need to start a go fund me to get the house saved or torn down and since this has caused it to deteriorate, probably demolished. BUT THE City should be paying for this and buying the land and reimbursing Ms. Bevilacqua.
Too bad you aren’t black Cindy, this would never have happened! This city’s politicians and bureaucrats have no soul. What a disgusting way to treat your neighbors. Welcome to Gainesville. By the way Eastside, you’re being played too. The city can’t wait to raise your taxes as soon as they build your field of dreams. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!